Harvard scientist Robert Putnam found that diversity hurts civic life, reduces social trust, pushes tribalism / grouping when the minorities are large enough to form their own enclaves. You get less volunteering, fewer civic organization members like Rotary Club, less willingness to donate to charity.
This is so contrary to liberal dogma he didn’t publish for ten years.
The downside of diversity
http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
Putnam chose to be optimistic about the future of diversity, assuming that all ethnic groups will learn to identify with each by creating a broader sense of ‘we’ just as white Americans of different European back-grounds expanded their parochial identities to encompass all Whites.
He ASSUMES diversity is a good despite the lack of evidence for it over the long-term and clear evidence of present costs. IN HIS OWN STUDY.
He ASSUMES diversity is a good despite the lack of evidence for it over the long-term and clear evidence of present costs. IN HIS OWN STUDY.
***************
I have never known a liberal (and I worked with tons of them) who wasn’t quick to rationalize their views by ignoring facts, logic, evidence and the lessons of history. They are by and large emotion driven creatures.
“He ASSUMES diversity is a good despite the lack of evidence for it over the long-term and clear evidence of present costs. IN HIS OWN STUDY.“
Think of what Quid Pro Joe said about truth and fact. The cognitively dissonant Mr. Putnam agrees and sees:
Truth: Diversity is good.
Fact: There’s no evidence diversity is good.
In DK, muzzies are the trespassers/insurgents/‘refugees/job takers’.
Sounds like their academia are tiring of their muzzie invasion. Maybe some of their blonde professors got muzzie-raped?
Does he?
He might have thrown that part in just so he can keep his career.